This sort of thing has happened before - some overzealous lawyer, or  
some techie who isn't paying attention, puts the wrong license on  
something.

It'll change.

If you haven't tried it, though, do so - it's ridiculously fast.

Can't wait to run it on all my machines.

And yes, someone will come out with an ad-blocker soonish.

Scott
--
R. Scott Granneman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ www.granneman.com
Full list of publications @ http://www.granneman.com/publications
   My new book: Linux Phrasebook @ http://www.granneman.com/books

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
       ---Albert Einstein

On Sep 3, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Theresa Kehoe wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 09:40 -0500, Robert Citek wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Theresa Kehoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
>> wrote:
>>> ... This license is for the
>>> sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote  
>>> the
>>> services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the
>>> additional terms of those services."
>>
>> What service?  I thought Chrome was a browser.
>
> Ask Google.
>
>>> Also, no AdBlockPlus! (then again, why would Google want to block
>>> ads???)
>>
>> If it's really Open Source, then just give it time.
>
> Ahh, but is it, really?  From that flawless unimpeachable source of
> perfect "truthiness", Wikipedia:
>
> Licensing
> Google Chrome source code is released under a BSD licence. Users of  
> the
> executable code version must accept Google Chrome Terms of Service
> instead.[11] A Slashdot news item has drawn attention to a passage in
> the EULA reading
>
>
>        "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give
>        Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and
>        non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate,
>        publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any
>        content which you submit, post or display on or through, the
>        services."[12]
>
> The passage in question is inherited from the general Google terms of
> service.[13]
>
>
>
>
> So, if it is truly Open Source, then why must you accept their terms  
> of
> service in order to use the executable?
>
> Theresa
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups)
Main page: http://www.cwelug.org
To post: [email protected]
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to